Plumber's visit hasn't helped. Should I pay?

[toasti]

I contacted a plumber about the fact that my loo wasn't flushing very well and he came round a while ago to look at it and give a quote. It had a standard flush and he suggested getting a bigger flush and quoted to supply and fit that. I agreed and he did that yesterday. The loo is not flushing any better than before; if anything, weirdly, it's worse.

I texted him about it and he replied, politely and with technical explanations, to say essentially it's not possible for it to be worse (though it is), and that the reason it's not flushing better is that it has a compact cistern, so the only way to get improvement would be to get a new loo with a taller cistern.

He has sent me an invoice for the full amount quoted. Do you think I should pay it? I recognize that he put the time in to do the work. At the same time, it seems a bit rubbish for me to have to pay for something that has not improved the problem at all, and has made it a bit worse. If he had said initially that it needed a taller cistern then I wouldn't have had this work done.

He is a really nice and reasonable person, and I don't want to be adversarial about this. What do you think would be the fair and right thing to do?

In this case, it's not so much I wouldn't pay, I'd expect him to continue until the problem is fixed and pay appropriately at that point.

If you are happy to get a new loo, I'd go ahead with that, and agree a mutually acceptable price that includes a reasonable payment for the current work.

I'd make sure he was confident the new loo would resolve matters tho!

@incandescentglow If I did query it, I wouldn’t say: “I’m not paying”. I would say something like: “I had the impression this would fix the problem and I’m disappointed that it hasn’t. I recognize that you took the time to do the work, but at the same time, I’m sure you can understand that it’s frustrating for me that the problem hasn’t improved. Given that it hasn’t improved, I wonder whether you feel it’s definitely right that I pay the full cost quoted, or whether there’s a different amount that would be fair to both of us?”

I would say that there’s an underlying assumption that a fix on an existing system not installed by that person may or may not work. I think you are reasonable to ask for a deal on the new toilet but not to imply that he’s at fault because it hasn’t worked.

@EarringsandLipstick Thank you for your post. When I was texting him yesterday he quoted £160 for fitting a new loo (but not supplying it - that would obv be separate). He said that with the knowledge that changing the flush didn’t help. Do you think I should ask for something less than £160 for fitting the new loo, given the situation with the flush?

@AreBearsCatholic The thing is that he’s said the reason it hasn’t worked is that the cistern is compact. He knew the height of the cistern before recommending getting a new flush.

He sounds genuine and his pricing is very reasonable especially if the £80 covered 2 jobs. You still need the problem fixed and he has offered another reasonable price. The next plumber may be twice the price and not be as honest.

@stairgates The £80 did not cover 2 jobs. The total cost is over £200.

I honestly don’t understand how anyone gets to adult hood and doesn’t understand the whole concept of hiring a tradesperson and paying. You did not hire him on fix or or the visit is free. How can you not grasp this.

pay your bill. The fact it’s going to cost you more is not his problem.

Not how it works OP. Services may not fix a problem but will advise what next. You still pay for their investigation of the issue.

He came and did work you were quoted for. You should pay him. I am shocked you don't seem to think you should pay tbh.

OP We had the same problem.
Not only was the flush inefficient, there was endless condensation which dripped on to the flooring and ruined it.
We had to replace the vinyl flooring every single year as a result.
As we live in a council house I got them round every few months and they did all sorts of things to the loo, and nothing changed.
It was only when we paid a plumber ourselves to install a new lavatory that we saw an immediate improvement.
It flushed perfectly and dropped our flooring being dripped on.
Just pay your plumber, then get a new lavatory.

I paid £210 for fitting new loo so £160 is a bargain. Sounds like he has given you a good deal because flush did not solve previous problem.

I don’t think it’s fair OP took on a professional and he gave bad advice but she still has to pay him.

Really? You think she hired him without thinking he'd fix the issue?

He absolutely should have made it clear to you, OP, that changing the flush might not help. He must have known. He should have given you the option of potentially paying less, knowing it's a risk, or paying more to guarantee it's fixed.

If 160 is what he charges to fit a new loo regardless, I'd be wanting him to knock some off. Not sure how you'd find out if he's taken this into consideration already though, although I'd suspect he'd have mentioned if he had?

If I took my car to a garage for them to find out what was wrong with it, and they suggested fitting a replacement part, I would expect that to cure the problem.

Same goes here - the OP has asked the plumber to fix a problem. His solution to the problem hasn't worked. Why would you want to pay for something that has not rectified the issue?

That’s the risk you take. He did the work and should be paid. That’s really how it works. That doesn’t mean it isn’t frustrating though.

yeah this is what i said which op seemingly bypassed lol

you hire someone to fix something, and they didnt fix it, so why would you pay them
simple as that

You need to pay. Unfortunately the new flush didn’t really help but he did the work in to good faith. It was worth a try. Not everything with houses in an exact science and sometimes you need to try multiple things.

Surely he must have realised that the cistern was compact when he advised the first 'fix'? Sounds to me that either he is incompetent or a chancer who thought he could make a bit more money out of a customer by deliberately suggesting a cheaper job first, knowing that ultimately only the more expensive option would solve the problem. Either way, I would see if I could get someone else to look at it before paying anything and deciding what to do.

I think some of the replies to @toasti are a bit unfair. Context is everything. On another recent thread, the OP (on that thread) did not feel she had to pay the tradesperson. But in that case, he hadn't guaranteed to fix the issue, but offered an option.

In this case, OP is using the plumber for a few jobs. I think it's fair enough that while covering his costs & time, he still ensures he achieves a solution. I know with the people I've used, we'd agree a charge, but then chat about what to do next. If j wasn't prepared to continue using them, I'd pay up. If I was, I'd expect to pay a final, reasonable figure, when the issue was fixed.

OP, regarding your question re loo cost / payment - I think that £80 plus £160 overall sounds like a reasonable figure, and if I was happy with the person & their work, I would actually pay that amount in full.

But if you think it's unfair, or not what you expected to pay, I would have a discussion with him about paying a lower price. He may of course walk away from the job, and that might be more hassle for you as a consequence.

I guess you have to weigh up the affordability, convenience & your expectations.

I certainly don't think you are a CF for considering this tho!

Then he should have been transparent. Pay 80 and possibly need to pay 160 (plus cost of new loo) anyway, or just replace it from the off to be sure.

Something like this should be quite obvious to him, seeing as he has presumably fitted many toilets.

I once had a tank that was leaking. Plumber said he could repair for now, but was likely to need to be replaced in the near future. I replaced.

You do have to pay sorry

Honestly it depends if the quote is to fix the issue or to replace the part, if it's to fix the issue then they still have work to do under the contract, if it's to replace the part then their contact is complete and payment is due.
Of course once you get onto the advice it's a grey area whether that's part of the contract but if it was before the quote it feels more like miss selling rather than anything else.
I'm not a solicitor but I would suggest going back and discussing and seeing what you can do about the price. Good will counts for a lot in this, but also they can't write off too much of their time for free.

If you took a car to a mechanic with a faulty light and they told you replacing the catalytic converter would fix it and then did it and you realised afterwards that the mechanic was an idiot and did something pointless then of course you wouldn't pay. How did you get to adulthood and not know that consumers have rights.